Site Sponsors
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 201 to 249 of 249

Thread: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

  1. #201
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Jorgen

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    It's all a question of individual needs of course. The choice for me is between Olympus and Sony. The telephoto need is real, since I shoot motor-sports and sometimes golf. For golf, I even need longer, but a TC or even a good old 500mm f/8 reflex can solve that (golfers move slower than cars).
    pardon me asking you to explain this, but I've been following (and contributing to) another thread and I don't understand.

    particularly when you say:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    What makes Olympus stand out when it comes to the fast 300mm is a combination of optical quality, weight, size and price, and I've never doubted that 4/3 would be the best solution for that.
    however what I see is:

    Canon EF300 f2.8 IS => 2.7Kg with collar @ US$4,500
    Olympus ED 300 f2.8 => 3.3Kg with collar @ US$6,499

    particularly in light of your discussion here it seems I'm missing something here.

    anyway ... pardon me for intruding

  2. #202
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Because the Zuiko 150mm f/2.0 has the same reach on an E-5 as the Canon 300mm f/2.8 has on a full frame camera. The new version of the Canon is $6,500 btw.

    Just to elaborate on this a bit:
    Making a 300mm f/2.8 for FF and for 4/3 is very similar. In theory, the one for 4/3 could maybe be slightly more compact due to the smaller sensor, but with the quality standards Olympus set for themselves, that was probably not possible. A newer lens will be more expensive than an older, simply because the development and tooling costs of the old lens have been written off already. But, as has been seen with Canon's and Nikon's new ventures into this focal length, making a new model also increase the cost. So they are all between 6 and 7,000 dollars now.

    We can discuss forever if the Zuiko 150mm f/2.0 is more or less the same as a 300mm f/2.8 or f/4.0 on FF. For me, it doesn't matter. F2.0 at 150mm offers a shallower DOF than I need most of the time, and it allows enough light onto the sensor and through the viewfinder for everything I would use such a lens for. So for me, the Zuiko represents lower weight, smaller size and less cost, while the disadvantages are more or less non-existing. It's arguably one of the best lenses designed and manufactured for photographic purposes ever, and although others make excellent telephoto lenses too, none have made a lens in this class that will fit into a small weekend bag, which is what I use when travelling within Southeast Asia.

    A Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 on the D300 would offer me the same range and relatively less DOF and more light, but it's also twice as expensive as the Zuiko. The Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 is a great, inexpensive and also compact lens, but lacks VR and focuses slowly. In five years, I doubt that there will be new Nikkor bodies available that will support AF on this lens. I believe it has been discontinued already. Again, Pentax has the most interesting alternative, a 200mm f/2.8 and IBIS on the K-5, but it's almost as expensive as the Zuiko.
    Last edited by Jorgen Udvang; 10th March 2011 at 06:38.

  3. #203
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Peter,
    Apart from medium and large format users, Leica, Sony and Olympus owners discuss image quality in a different way than others. If you want to discuss photography with Canon or Nikon users, you have to discuss what is important to most of them: technical terms, like High ISO, DR and megapixels. That doesn't mean that Canikon photographers are bad photographers, and it doesn't even mean that they are necessarily wrong. It's just a different platform to start a discussion from.

    We all share the same objective: to make a good photo. Those who lean towards Leica or Olympus cameras often have different theories about what makes that good photo compared to those who use the mainstream brands. Still, the results are often similar. No one is right, no one is wrong. Nobody owns the copyright to the final solution. There probably is no such thing anyway. What I do know is that some cameras work better for me than others. I've tried Nikon/Fuji for six years now, after more than 30 years with Olympus. I have learned that I prefer Olympus, but if you ask me why, I can probably only explain 20% or less of that.

    This debate has been very refreshing, and it has forced me to check and double check my own views. Very healthy. I'm also very thankful for being on a forum where this kind of discussion is possible. Those who participate here clearly know what they are talking about, and although we may reach different conclusions, there's a lot to learn for all involved.

    If or when I change back to Olympus, it will be because I believe their lenses and their cameras suit me more than those from other brands and help me take better photos. But it's reassuring also to know what the limitations are with regards to low light photography, dynamic range and so on. I know more about that now than I did before we started this thread
    Last edited by Jorgen Udvang; 10th March 2011 at 07:00.

  4. #204
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    [del]

    Actually dpreview I believe started testing for this again after they stopped. The e-330 for example "ran hot" - ie. more sensitive than the ISO that Olympus marked on it, yet they were complying (allegedly) with such ISO standards. A camera as recent as the LX3 ran a little lower.

    is there any evidence of this ?
    heres the low down on the standards from Andy Westlake in responce to this message from a user confused about the conflicting data DxO present
    Several points here:

    - Andy doesn't make full raw converters, DXo does. Going by credentials Dxo certainly has far more engineering know how about this than dpreview.
    - My own observations on DR between 620, 420, E-3 are matched quite exactly by DXo. This goes from low level dcraw examinations to full pipeline.
    - We can ignore manufacturer's ISO's on this discussion because the procedure used by Dxo normalized, put's the sensor at how sensitive they are to light on that graph. So we can ignore the debate on whether the manufacturer ISO is true or not, the graph still holds, the comparison is valid. It would be erroneous say to compare DXo's ISO on one brand and switch to the manufacturer on the other, and that's not what Dxo is doing.


    There is a far higher population of users with RAW converters adjusted to manufacturer specs rather than straight RAW converters with no front ends such as dcraw, by and large these follow those same curves as the curves set by the manufacturer which is not to suggest that cant be changed but it is the default position for RAW. Indeed these converters are these days looked upon to be the most favourable comparison, giving the better noise performance and colour gamut than front endless dcraw.
    Those manufacturer curves don't change sensor characteristics. That's precisely why every single Olympus camera since the e-30 came out, when Olympus shifted the entire scale up gained so much shadow noise compared to the E-3. There's no free lunch here- highlights preserved at the expense of shadows. ISO 100 = ISO 200 on all these cameras (E-3 and forward) and that includes Pen. It's no wonder then that an under exposed by 1 stop ISO and then brought back up is going to preserve highlights at the expense of shadows, and why ISO 100 "has less DR (erroneously referred from less highlight DR".

    Since you never answered me twice Im rightly given to assume your position is that the manufacturer position on ISO is the lesser to DxO,
    I don't believe that's logical. I can't agree to the non answer and I can't agree that because someone didn't answer statement A that means that embraced statement B.

    which is quite wrong. DxO data fits its own position on ISO and no-one elses, certainly not complying with the manufacturers (all of them) standards. Yes DxO shows data that agrees with your position, the problem all along was you chose the wrong data set.
    The exact iSO here (DXo's or manufacturers) really is another point that is separate from the better higher ISO performance of the A900 over the E-5. It looks like we are not going to agree on that one and because it's a different point I am not going to further discuss on that.

    - Raist

  5. #205
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    [del]

    Actually dpreview I believe started testing for this again after they stopped. The e-330 for example "ran hot" - ie. more sensitive than the ISO that Olympus marked on it, yet they were complying (allegedly) with such ISO standards. A camera as recent as the LX3 ran a little lower.
    the present standard, although it comes from another derivative (that had less industry support) didnt come into play until after Oct 20 2006
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse330/
    http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka.../DC-004_EN.pdf
    this document precedes that but I can prove it if doubted

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    Several points here:

    - Andy doesn't make full raw converters, DXo does. Going by credentials Dxo certainly has far more engineering know how about this than dpreview.
    ok, how many cameras do DxO make, and how many photographs do they take?
    are you telling me that Andy is wrong about the the nature of DxO testing as it pertains to the standard on this matter, b/se thats an argument you best take up with him. Irrespective of that, your camera has an ISO measurement that conforms to the standard, while nobody argues how well a fit that is between jpeg images, its a fact that most popular RAW converters are amenable to that same specification although this is relatively recent. I think arguing that DxO are the only ones right and everyone else is wrong is quite silly. DxO are right for themselves, everyone else conforms with the standard

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    - My own observations on DR between 620, 420, E-3 are matched quite exactly by DXo. This goes from low level dcraw examinations to full pipeline.
    - We can ignore manufacturer's ISO's on this discussion because the procedure used by Dxo normalized, put's the sensor at how sensitive they are to light on that graph. So we can ignore the debate on whether the manufacturer ISO is true or not, the graph still holds, the comparison is valid. It would be erroneous say to compare DXo's ISO on one brand and switch to the manufacturer on the other, and that's not what Dxo is doing.
    I dont buy that at all, from yourself its simply user derived opinion, its not testing. As to the difference between DxO values and those of actual camera manufacturers on review, one is data, the other is photographic derived data, which is more important?
    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    Those manufacturer curves don't change sensor characteristics.
    if they dont, why are the data points different. You already know the answer, its ot a matter of the sensor and pipeline, its a matter of how the tests are constructed and only that. IMO its a huge blunder on DxO's part for the usefulness of their data, and the correlation to other available data.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    That's precisely why every single Olympus camera since the e-30 came out, when Olympus shifted the entire scale up gained so much shadow noise compared to the E-3. There's no free lunch here- highlights preserved at the expense of shadows. ISO 100 = ISO 200 on all these cameras (E-3 and forward) and that includes Pen. It's no wonder then that an under exposed by 1 stop ISO and then brought back up is going to preserve highlights at the expense of shadows, and why ISO 100 "has less DR (erroneously referred from less highlight DR".
    likewise fitting DR to a curve optimised to the highlight end will fit some cameras better than others, hence this leads to our previous discussion of IMATEST data and the proximity of DxO data

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    I don't believe that's logical. I can't agree to the non answer and I can't agree that because someone didn't answer statement A that means that embraced statement B.
    obfuscation, you were given the opportunity twice, 3x if you include this. I gave you fair warning and its a fair call on my part, and your concluding section here gives the answer to this anyway

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    The exact iSO here (DXo's or manufacturers) really is another point that is separate from the better higher ISO performance of the A900 over the E-5. It looks like we are not going to agree on that one and because it's a different point I am not going to further discuss on that.
    - Raist
    there you go with this assumption that DxO are right, and the rest of the planet is wrong. But FWIW there is some easy math on the noise value of downsampled image sizes. If in this event you went from 24Mp to 12Mp that works out to the root of (24/12) or 1.41

  6. #206
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Because the Zuiko 150mm f/2.0 has the same reach on an E-5 as the Canon 300mm f/2.8 has on a full frame camera. The new version of the Canon is $6,500 btw.
    well sure, but why not use the 300mm f2.8 on a crop camera (canon do make them) such as a 7D or even 1D. In which case the comparison will not be as disparate as you are making it by forcing the comparison with full frame.

  7. #207
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    well sure, but why not use the 300mm f2.8 on a crop camera (canon do make them) such as a 7D or even 1D. In which case the comparison will not be as disparate as you are making it by forcing the comparison with full frame.
    We can discuss forever if the Zuiko 150mm f/2.0 is more or less the same as a 300mm f/2.8 or f/4.0 on FF. For me, it doesn't matter.
    but we are not discussing that (well I am not discussing that with you), the thread is long so if you have said why you have discounted the APS camera formats and are fixated on only 4/3 or full frame then please just put in a link to the post and I'll read that.

    :-)

    PS in case you think I'm a Canon mouthpiece please just toddle over to my blog where I have been extolling the virtues of the Panasonic G1 since 2009 and have over 50 posts which discuss the advantages and discuss many legacy lenses that can be adapted for use on it.

  8. #208
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    125
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    I don't know if the E-5 is better or worse than other cameras, what I do know is that I regularly shoot with it at iso 1600-2000 with no problems at all, and that I have put it through pretty tough conditions and it just goes on delivering.

    You can see pictures of the action I was shooting at: www.villadurnovo.com

  9. #209
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    well sure, but why not use the 300mm f2.8 on a crop camera (canon do make them) such as a 7D or even 1D. In which case the comparison will not be as disparate as you are making it by forcing the comparison with full frame.
    Putting the 300mm 2.8 on a crop camera gives you a lens that is too long if you want to use the 150mm 2.0 on the Olympus. A better choice would be the 200mm f2. It's optical quality is probably similar to the 150mm f2 as both are high regarded lenses. It's even more expensive and heavier then the 300mm 2.8. Using a zoom at 200mm on a crop camera just doesn't give the same quality and the recent 70-200s aren't any cheaper or lighter then the Oly 150mm f2.

    Using the 300mm on a crop camera would be similar to the 150mm + 1.4x EC. The latter is significantly ligher and cheaper. I don't have links to samples though.
    Charles - flickr

  10. #210
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by micek View Post
    I don't know if the E-5 is better or worse than other cameras, what I do know is that I regularly shoot with it at iso 1600-2000 with no problems at all, and that I have put it through pretty tough conditions and it just goes on delivering.

    You can see pictures of the action I was shooting at: www.villadurnovo.com
    Ha ha, that's wild. Love it

    Yes, the excellent weather sealing and solid build are also reasons that count in favour of Olympus. I do break cameras sometimes, and even managed to kill my E-1 in a motorcycle accident.

  11. #211
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    well sure, but why not use the 300mm f2.8 on a crop camera (canon do make them) such as a 7D or even 1D. In which case the comparison will not be as disparate as you are making it by forcing the comparison with full frame.
    Cilacz mostly answered that for me, but again: the 300/2.8 of any brand are big, expensive and heavy. A 200/2.0 on DX looks like a better option, being just around 200mm long (the 150/2 is 150mm) against the 260-270mm of the 300mm lenses, but they are still nearly 3 kilograms, nearly twice as much as the 1.6 kilos of the Zuiko. And they are both around $6,000, like their bigger 300mm brothers.

    Currently, I use Nikon cameras with an 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S, an excellent lens which takes me to the 300mm eqv. that I need. But it's old and doesn't have VR, and the short end is too long, at 120mm eqv. So I would need another zoom, like the Tokina 50-135/2.8, to fill the gap between the normal zoom and the long one. While there are ways to solve this, none do it as elegantly as Olympus, which is natural, since the lenses are designed from the ground up with the smaller sensor in mind.

    I also have a Nikkor 300mm f/4.0. It's a superb lens, but too long for most of what I do when used on DX. It's mostly in the bag or at home. Should I need the 400mm eqv., the 150/2 is still rather good even with the 1.4x TC.

    Finally, there's the headache with the normal zoom. The only ones that really impress me, both when I look at test results and real life photography, are the Zeiss/Sony 24-70 and Zuiko 14-35. Some of the others, like the Nikon 24-70, are good, but the Zeiss and Zuiko are better. They are also a bit shorter, which make them easier to hold.

    The length of lenses is something that doesn't get discussed too much, but when I'm running around with a camera and lens the whole day, there's a lot of difference between a short and a long lens. That's basic physics, and no big surprise. Here are one of the disadvantages with the Olympus system also: The 35-100/2.0 is rather front heavy. Totally, it's about the same weight as the Nikkor 80-200, but it feels a bit heavier.

    Nothing against Canon owners btw. There's no such thing as an unbiased opinion of course, but reading between the lines is one of the challenges being on a forum like this. As for me, I have considered Canon a number of times, and had actually decided to buy the 20D as my first DSLR. What stops me every time is partly ergonomics and partly the white lenses. Many of the places I travel, I don't need a white lens indicating that I have loads of money. Brand recognition has its negative sides too, and the white lenses of Canon are almost as famous as Coca-Cola.

    Ooooh... many words. Hope they make sense

  12. #212
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by cjlacz View Post
    Putting the 300mm 2.8 on a crop camera gives you a lens that is too long if you want to use the 150mm 2.0 on the Olympus
    probably, but I was only using that as the lens to discuss because he was comparing the Canon EF and the Oly ED in 300. I was only commenting on the comparison with using the EF on Full Frame and then discussing lenses on the Olympus which is 4/3 ... my comment was restricted on making the comparison between systems more "alike" by comparing the Canon APS cameras using 300mm (and Jorgen mentioned Golf and motorsports photography)

  13. #213
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by micek View Post
    I don't know if the E-5 is better or worse than other cameras, what I do know is that I regularly shoot with it at iso 1600-2000 with no problems at all, and that I have put it through pretty tough conditions and it just goes on delivering.
    yep ... it sure is a tough camera!

    I recently saw this image taken in Afganistan of (what appears to be) an EOS 1


  14. #214
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Hi

    thanks for bringing me into the picture ... I appreciate your valuing my participation by writing this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    ...
    Finally, there's the headache with the normal zoom. The only ones that really impress me, both when I look at test results and real life photography, are the Zeiss/Sony 24-70 and Zuiko 14-35. Some of the others, like the Nikon 24-70, are good, but the Zeiss and Zuiko are better. They are also a bit shorter, which make them easier to hold.

    The length of lenses is something that doesn't get discussed too much, but when I'm running around with a camera and lens the whole day, there's a lot of difference between a short and a long lens. That's basic physics, and no big surprise....

    Hope they make sense
    it does ... and I love my G camera exactly because I can use an FD200f4 and only add 400grams to my backpack. Its because I like the lighter stuff (and prefer the images) that I use 4/3 as my preferred telephoto system.

    I moved away from years of Canon to the G system for a number of reasons and still enjoy the lighter camera. I was struck at a conference in my 3rd or 4th month of using the system how much things added up however and found that FD300f4, ZD9-18 zoom, and FD 50 f.14 started to get as heavy as when I was using EOS.

    If I was again considering my stuff from scratch I'd consider EF again so I could use a FF body and a crop body to different effect. Probably a 7D and a 5D. I like the tele on the 7D and normal to wide on the 5D ... so 50mm is my turn around point for which to body choose.

    Monopods help ... and there are covers for the white lenses.

    but if I needed Video then the GH-2 would be hard to avoid.

  15. #215
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    The use of legacy lenses is important for some people, me included, and something that is to some extent shared between the EF, 4/3 and m4/3 mounts. Being able to use a Zeiss 85mm f/1.8 as a 170mm eqv. lens is just great or the equally great OM Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 macro as a short tele. And so on.

    The only important reason I see for me to buy a full frame camera is to be able to use lenses like the OM 21/3.5 as a WA lens on a digital camera, and I almost bought a 5D for that purpose only. But in the end, I found that a Zuiko 11-22mm is such a fantastic lens, and cheaper than a 5D anyway, so the 21mm is dedicated to film on the OM-3.

    I see E-5 plus GH2 as an almost ideal combination, since the GH2 is usable as a backup for the Olympus. It won't AF with the 150 though, and my Panasonic 7-14 obviously won't fit on the E-5. But here is also one of the challenges for Nikon: in my collection of Nikon lenses, there are several that are not AF-S. There's no way they will AF on an electronic Nikon camera. My prediction is that the AF D lenses will lose their value rather fast when Nikon starts releasing something similar to m4/3. They won't AF, and AIS lenses are better for manual focusing.

  16. #216
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Which 150 do you have? The GH2 will AF with the current 150mm. I tried it on a G2 because I was thinking of the 150 + 2x for my safari trip (no GH2 in store but the functionality was added on this round of cameras).

    On a G2 it is much slower and jerkier to get focus. The GH2 focuses faster.

  17. #217
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    Which 150 do you have? The GH2 will AF with the current 150mm. I tried it on a G2 because I was thinking of the 150 + 2x for my safari trip (no GH2 in store but the functionality was added on this round of cameras).

    On a G2 it is much slower and jerkier to get focus. The GH2 focuses faster.
    I don't have it (yet), I read it from the compatibility table on Panasonic's website:

    http://panasonic.jp/support/global/c...nnect/gh2.html

    If AF works, that is nice. That makes the E-5/GH2 combo even more attractive

  18. #218
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    The only important reason I see for me to buy a full frame camera is to be able to use lenses like the OM 21/3.5 as a WA lens on a digital camera, and I almost bought a 5D for that purpose only. But in the end, I found that a Zuiko 11-22mm is such a fantastic lens, and cheaper than a 5D anyway, so the 21mm is dedicated to film on the OM-3.
    interesting ... exactly the same lens which keeps me wanting a 5D and mine is relegated to my OM-10 as a film only lens too ... although I do sneak it onto my EOS 630 bodies from time to time too.

    If I was doing more motorsport (only occasionally photograph a friend who does vetran and classic stuff) I would be (read am) tempted to get a 20D again so that I could justify buying the EF300f4 to get that fantastic AF

    It was that thought I had in mind when first commenting about your discussion of E-5 + 300mm

    IFF I bought that combo then without doubt I'd go grab myself a used 5D Mk1 and start using my OM 21mm on it ...

    This would of course upset the apple cart at my camera cupboard ...

  19. #219
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    With motor sports, I've found that the ideal lens would be a 24-120 (12-60 in Olympus terms). The clients tend to prefer pan shots, and panning with long lenses is very hard work and difficult to get right. Getting close to the action is what counts. I mostly use the 80-200 for aerial views, hairpins (to get a more dramatic perspective) and those important start grid, pretty girl shots

  20. #220
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    With motor sports, ... and those important start grid, pretty girl shots
    sadly there are less of them at Vetran and classic hill-climbs than at (say) the Indy ... ;-)

    I just love the "round the tight bend" front on shots with the cars in 'body roll' and lifting a tyre ...

  21. #221
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    sadly there are less of them at Vetran and classic hill-climbs than at (say) the Indy ... ;-)

    I just love the "round the tight bend" front on shots with the cars in 'body roll' and lifting a tyre ...
    Something like this?

    D300 with 300mm f/4.0 @ f/4.0



    It's difficult to get any motion blur in the wheels at this angle. Clients generally prefer something like the one below (from an S-turn), even if it's not at all sharp.

    Fuji S5 with 80-200 AF-S @ 150mm and f/5.0


  22. #222
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Somebody over at dpr claimed that the 14-35 f/2.0 is out of stock at most major camera shops. I checked, and he seems to be right. Seems like the qualities of the E-5 have spurred new interest in the SHG lenses. There's talk about a 3 months wait before more lenses are coming in. Stock of the 50mm f/2.0 is also running low.

  23. #223
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Somebody over at dpr claimed that the 14-35 f/2.0 is out of stock at most major camera shops. I checked, and he seems to be right. Seems like the qualities of the E-5 have spurred new interest in the SHG lenses. There's talk about a 3 months wait before more lenses are coming in. Stock of the 50mm f/2.0 is also running low.
    Hmmm I am honestly not sure how the E-5 would do this now after several years of several 4/3rd bodies. Here's another thought: maybe 4/3rds SGH glass is being discontinued? The e-5 being the last 4/3rds, this makes sense- put out the E-5 and drive demand for the lenses to get them to move (margins on lenses probably higher than camera though the E_5 probably has a good margin on it), and finally sell remaining stock.

    - Raist

  24. #224
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Discontinue SHG lenses just as they launch the best 4/3 camera ever? Wouldn't that be a strange thing to do, considering the E-5 is apparently stay the top model for 2-3 years?

    I think it's rather due to the fact that the E-5 is selling unexpectedly well in some markets, and that many buyers feel that they at last have a 4/3 camera that deserves the best lenses. The SHG lenses are probably made more ore less manually in small batches anyway, but if they have a supply problem, it may last for a while. There's probably special glass involved that takes time to manufacture.

  25. #225
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,868
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    I was told I should receive my SHG glass next week. Already more than a week late then ..... hmmm

    Hope this is a good sign WRT there is high demand for SHG glass and that for Olympus this is a sign to continue the 43 system - especially with an E7 with still OVF

  26. #226
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Discontinue SHG lenses just as they launch the best 4/3 camera ever? Wouldn't that be a strange thing to do, considering the E-5 is apparently stay the top model for 2-3 years?
    Is it really that strange? How many people are really buying the E-5 then the SHG glass? Think about it- that glass is not what sells everyday, and they need to move it out. Release the e-5, get it out of stock and prepare the way for the full micro four thirds switch soon. They are going to be coming with "pro glass" for micro four thirds, the first one just announced as a mockup. They are going to redo the entire line (equivalent-wise, not quite 1 y 1 but range wise). There's no reason to continue producing 4/3rds lenses after E-5 and as a company you would like to take out all the stock lenses.

    I think it's rather due to the fact that the E-5 is selling unexpectedly well in some markets, and that many buyers feel that they at last have a 4/3 camera that deserves the best lenses. The SHG lenses are probably made more ore less manually in small batches anyway, but if they have a supply problem, it may last for a while. There's probably special glass involved that takes time to manufacture.
    The E-5 at least in USA sure isn't selling that much. At least the big dealer in LA had them all on special order and seemed more like Olympus has been trailing the supply. The E-5 is a camera aimed at the 4/3rds owner with 4/3rds glass (even Olympus publicly said this), there aren't much incentives to being new people in.

    I agree SHG lenses aren't made every day. Also I am not saying this is a 100% done deal the way I described, just saying really, I wouldn't be surprised. The lenses according to "Chris from Osaka" in Japan (the SHG) *were not selling at all*, and they were starting to disappear from stores including stores that supported Olympus (according to him).

    I would like to know from where everyone is getting the E-5 is "selling like hotcakes" honestly.

    - Raist

  27. #227
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    I was told I should receive my SHG glass next week. Already more than a week late then ..... hmmm

    Hope this is a good sign WRT there is high demand for SHG glass and that for Olympus this is a sign to continue the 43 system - especially with an E7 with still OVF
    Hope springs eternal doesn't it? :-) It's not happening. The only chance I give it is if the E-5 does indeed fly off *and* the new president sees something in this. The new president is the wild card. I want to know if he plans to trim Olympus Imaging or do a final "push" to "do what it takes" to make a dent in the market.

    I think we will see major changes soon. I don't think he's going to be resting at all in his new position.

    - Raist

  28. #228
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,868
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Well,

    I think the new presidents main task is to lead Olympus to better globalization. Not sure if that means anything to the products itself.

    But hope is there. It is a shame that a company with such a great idea (E system) and being co-inventor of M43 is not able to really rock the market. Think about if the E5 would have had a Sony sensor of the latest generation wit sam weak AA filter it has today, it would blow away any competition. Instead they were forced to use the "old" Panasonic sensor, not even their new GH2 sensor, which would also have been a big leap forward.

    So I think it is rather these kind of contracts and decisions which stop them from become real top players in photography.

    There is hope ....

  29. #229
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    They did say something about one of his missions will include accelerating programs. So one thing comes to mind, the 2015 deadline for imaging.

    I think a CEO would need to be convinced that continuation in SLRs can never be profitable first. Sort of a rare situation where an otherwise viable company ends production and development and leaves owners of an entire lens range to an adapter route on another format.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...71904620110210
    "Woodford said personnel changes and slashing back office costs had enabled him to turn Olympus's European operations around and make $200 million in profit, nine years after he took them over at break-even."

    http://www.olympus-global.com/en/new...0210corpe.html
    "These new appointments are being made to reinforce the business infrastructure for global management, and to accelerate the execution of strategies that are outlined in the 2010 Corporate Strategic Plan."

  30. #230
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Well,

    I think the new presidents main task is to lead Olympus to better globalization. Not sure if that means anything to the products itself.
    Of course it means products also. How else do you execute on the strategies that the company setup for each division. Also he is going to have to take a close look at Olympus Imaging because Olympus Imaging has been loosing market/revenues constantly now for like four years, accelerating that trend in the last year and a half including now in the red. He's going to have to take a look at the division and fix, sell or kill. Olympus the company is not going to keep an unprofitable division like that for too long. This was said before also by the company higher management.

    I do think he's going to give the division a chance. I want to see how he helps them or not with the decisions.

    But hope is there. It is a shame that a company with such a great idea (E system) and being co-inventor of M43 is not able to really rock the market.
    Well they are the ones consistently saying there's no more 4/3rds in the future (after E-5, now even said by themselves). Unless something drastic direction wise happens, that's the last of the 4/3rds. It makes no sense then to make expensive lenses in that line if the system is getting canned.

    Think about if the E5 would have had a Sony sensor of the latest generation wit sam weak AA filter it has today, it would blow away any competition.
    Yup. I mean, that's part of my big frustration with the E-5. The e-5 took a good camera (E-3) and tweaked it/optimized it (though carried some quirks like its user interface/ergonomics), made it to 2011 with a 2008 sensor. But by the way I wouldn't even say a Sony sensor, a GH2 sensor would have been enough. It would have surpassed the resolution of the 16/18 MP competitors, has no banding, and allows the ISO advantage to be kept close enough that a faster aperture or lens could bring the camera very close to what competitors can do.

    Instead they were forced to use the "old" Panasonic sensor, not even their new GH2 sensor, which would also have been a big leap forward.
    Correct. I honestly don't know where the truth lies here, but the rumors talk about a contract where Olympus had to buy Panasonic. Allegedly such contract expires this year. I have no idea if this is true honestly, and a lot are talking about it as if it was confirmed/done deal but I haven't seen it confirmed.

    In the meantime you get nonsense apologetic explanations like (i) Panasonic optimized the GH2 sensor for movies and not stills (false), (ii) Olympus could chose the Panasonic sensor but decided not to (seems false considering Panasonic themselves said they hold key technologies to themselves for product differentiation) or the (iii) the current sensor is fine because the "blue crystals" Olympsu imbued on it plus the weaker AA more than make up for any issues (also false imho, though you can get fantastic shots in low iso if you get the exposure right).

    So I think it is rather these kind of contracts and decisions which stop them from become real top players in photography.

    There is hope ....
    You have to consider why such contracts exist to begin with. There's probably good reasons here. But the hope you talk about is yes- a better sensor- for the upcoming Pens and Pen Pro. Unless something *drastic* happens, 4/3rds is no more. On the good side- the lenses you buy now Olympus is trying to make them work on the new Pen Pro. Now, trying and actually doing it are two different things. I think they will do it, and if that's the case, I wouldn't worry too much about no more bodies. Lenses carry on.

    - Raist

  31. #231
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Of course it means products also. How else do you execute on the strategies that the company setup for each division. Also he is going to have to take a close look at Olympus Imaging because Olympus Imaging has been loosing market/revenues constantly now for like four years, accelerating that trend in the last year and a half including now in the red. He's going to have to take a look at the division and fix, sell or kill. Olympus the company is not going to keep an unprofitable division like that for too long. This was said before also by the company higher management.
    there is no higher than the CEO, the CoB (chairman of the board) hires him on behalf of the board, but likely the board are not in full time employment of Olympus, even the president answers to the CEO

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    I do think he's going to give the division a chance. I want to see how he helps them or not with the decisions.

    Well they are the ones consistently saying there's no more 4/3rds in the future (after E-5, now even said by themselves). Unless something drastic direction wise happens, that's the last of the 4/3rds. It makes no sense then to make expensive lenses in that line if the system is getting canned.
    actually to be specific what they said until recently was pertinent to SLRs/mirrorless, now they say Pen/Pen Pro. If they had a real Pen with real controls in the first place they wouldnt even have the concept of Pen Pro. I doubt it will replace E5 in function just range position

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    Yup. I mean, that's part of my big frustration with the E-5. The e-5 took a good camera (E-3) and tweaked it/optimized it (though carried some quirks like its user interface/ergonomics), made it to 2011 with a 2008 sensor. But by the way I wouldn't even say a Sony sensor, a GH2 sensor would have been enough. It would have surpassed the resolution of the 16/18 MP competitors, has no banding, and allows the ISO advantage to be kept close enough that a faster aperture or lens could bring the camera very close to what competitors can do.
    both GH1 and GH2 have exhibited banding

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    Correct. I honestly don't know where the truth lies here, but the rumors talk about a contract where Olympus had to buy Panasonic. Allegedly such contract expires this year. I have no idea if this is true honestly, and a lot are talking about it as if it was confirmed/done deal but I haven't seen it confirmed.

    In the meantime you get nonsense apologetic explanations like (i) Panasonic optimized the GH2 sensor for movies and not stills (false), (ii) Olympus could chose the Panasonic sensor but decided not to (seems false considering Panasonic themselves said they hold key technologies to themselves for product differentiation) or the (iii) the current sensor is fine because the "blue crystals" Olympsu imbued on it plus the weaker AA more than make up for any issues (also false imho, though you can get fantastic shots in low iso if you get the exposure right).

    You have to consider why such contracts exist to begin with. There's probably good reasons here. But the hope you talk about is yes- a better sensor- for the upcoming Pens and Pen Pro. Unless something *drastic* happens, 4/3rds is no more. On the good side- the lenses you buy now Olympus is trying to make them work on the new Pen Pro. Now, trying and actually doing it are two different things. I think they will do it, and if that's the case, I wouldn't worry too much about no more bodies. Lenses carry on.
    - Raist
    without new bodies, then lenses or not much like Contax its all over.

  32. #232
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Something like this?
    rather exactly like that ... :-)

    great work

  33. #233
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,868
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    My rep here in Austria told me (because I asked when I bought the E5) that there will always be a Pro line of cameras (camera) - which is currently the
    E5.

    Well this could be an E7 or a Pro M43, but he made also clear that the absolute Pro line would keep a mirror and OVF and have the form factor and size of the E5 as Pro's are telling Olympus this would be the size they want.

    If the M43 Pro camera is such a beast I could not care less about the future of my Olympus 43 lenses - because I would then be sure that this combo would work just fine!

    Hopefully we see some announcements and directions soon!

  34. #234
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    actually to be specific what they said until recently was pertinent to SLRs/mirrorless, now they say Pen/Pen Pro.
    I am sorry but they have indeed said pen. They have said several things actually but one of them is "the future is Pen." This was either the Olympus Europe head guy or Terada-san himself.

    both GH1 and GH2 have exhibited banding
    The GH1 can but it's very mild. The GH2 I have yet to see banding anywhere. If you have a link to that I would appreciate for my reference. I have downloaded RAWS and pushed them significantly (ISO 6400 2-3 stops up) and I have yet to see banding evidence. Regularly on the other sensors that exhibit banding this would bring up banding in the shadows (as the article I linked previously in Luminous Landscape on the E-3 talked about). And this is the 2nd issue with banding- if you get it is bad, but if you have to post process for any reason, there's often no latitude for doing so.

    If one can get one or two shot super rare shots of banding on a GH2 to me that's as good as virtually no banding. Almost every CMOS can band once in a really blue moon.

    without new bodies, then lenses or not much like Contax its all over.
    Following that logic, then it is. But the idea here is that yes, 4/3rd lenses are discontinued, but can work on the new Pen Pro. There will certainly be new lenses on the Pen Pro (or whatever name they come up with).

    - Raist
    Last edited by raist3d; 14th March 2011 at 22:22.

  35. #235
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    My rep here in Austria told me (because I asked when I bought the E5) that there will always be a Pro line of cameras (camera) - which is currently the
    E5.
    You have to ask yourself who knows more about Olympus strategy: an Olympus sales representative or the Olympus whole Europe Camera marketing guy. And Olympus sales representative or the Company CEO (that's the one that said if Imaging doesn't turn around by 2015, it's over for them). And Olympus sales representative, or Mr. Terada-san himself, the head of the DSLR (that includes Pen) of Olympus Japan/HQ.

    It is really irrelevant what that representative is telling you. And all you have to do also is connect the dots- for a while Olympus has been a bit coy and gradually breaking the new (though they have broken them relatively fast I say). First, both systems will be supported. Then the future is pen, and a top pro will exist "until the Pen can perform as good or better than the top pro" in all areas they expect it to. And now this presentation shows up that clearly shows, the E-5 is the last, and that without a question, it's all moving to Pens (the top pro covered by the "Pen Pro").

    Well this could be an E7 or a Pro M43, but he made also clear that the absolute Pro line would keep a mirror and OVF and have the form factor and size of the E5 as Pro's are telling Olympus this would be the size they want.
    Again, what that representative is saying is quite irrelevant having so many people of Olympus way over his position at the company saying the other things. Though if he said Pro M43, that doesn't contradict what Olympus has been saying.

    If the M43 Pro camera is such a beast I could not care less about the future of my Olympus 43 lenses - because I would then be sure that this combo would work just fine!
    That's what I have been saying :-) The only concern I have there is that they really do it, that they actually do work very well. But they have said this themselves, that this is one of their top priorities. As it should be, because if that doesn't happen, the PR backlash is going to be big from the 4/3rds owner.

    Hopefully we see some announcements and directions soon!
    I think as far as the new president is in, we will see drastic changes soon. I would expect by years end we should be seeing some different directions. At least marketing has to change it tune.

  36. #236
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    I am sorry but they have indeed said pen. They have said several things actually but one of them is "the future is Pen." This was either the Olympus Europe head guy or Tarada-san himself.
    your just not good at the concept of agreement are you
    his name is Terada BTW

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    The GH1 can but it's very mild. The GH2 I have yet to see banding anywhere. If you have a link to that I would appreciate for my reference. I have downloaded RAWS and pushed them significantly (ISO 6400 2-3 stops up) and I have yet to see banding evidence. Regularly on the other sensors that exhibit banding this would bring up banding in the shadows (as the article I linked previously in Luminous Landscape on the E-3 talked about). And this is the 2nd issue with banding- if you get it is bad, but if you have to post process for any reason, there's often no latitude for doing so.

    If one can get one or two shot super rare shots of banding on a GH2 to me that's as good as virtually no banding. Almost every CMOS can band once in a really blue moon.
    Well people seem to have trouble stopping GH2 from banding with video, but almost any camera you can mention you can find out it bands if you bother to look for it. The same was revealed about 5DII and 7D as it was with GH1 which bands fairly readily above ISO800. You had that discussion on those principles with Jonas with whom you disagreed. It suspect wont go any better with me

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    Following that logic, then it is. But the idea here is that yes, 4/3rd lenses are discontinued, but can work on the new Pen Pro. There will certainly be new lenses on the Pen Pro (or whatever name they come up with).
    - Raist
    I think the flaw in their plan is, that AF will not be as good with these lenses than would be on a conventional SLR. If thats the case even initially, enthusiasm for them will quickly disappear as there will almost inevitably be a better replacement from mFT. All of a sudden you have no bodies and in reality no lenses either.

    And I say this from wide experience with Olympus, as in my experience AF is fine in good controlled conditions, and lessens considerably when the going gets tough and as incrementally those conditions change the ability of the AF system decreases.

    I do not see Olympus as a company that has an innate skill in developing AF systems. If Im wrong well I can only be happy about that, but thats my feeling about the matter and my suspicion of where its all going.

  37. #237
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    your just not good at the concept of agreement are you
    his name is Terada BTW
    Please refrain from making silly commentary, thanks. I don't see why I should agree when it's not what they said. And I know it's Terada. Most people on the internet when they resort to correct spelling mistakes are looking for some stupid fight.

    Well people seem to have trouble stopping GH2 from banding with video, but almost any camera you can mention you can find out it bands if you bother to look for it. The same was revealed about 5DII and 7D as it was with GH1 which bands fairly readily above ISO800. You had that discussion on those principles with Jonas with whom you disagreed. It suspect wont go any better with me
    Again, where is the GH2 banding? If it's for video, at what ISO's? That still doesn't take away a superior sensor from what the E-5 has, and I haven't seen banding on stills. Like I said, you can get banding on CMOS, but if it's really hard it's irrelevant. The E-5 bands rather easy.

    I think the flaw in their plan is, that AF will not be as good with these lenses than would be on a conventional SLR. If thats the case even initially, enthusiasm for them will quickly disappear as there will almost inevitably be a better replacement from mFT. All of a sudden you have no bodies and in reality no lenses either.
    That is possible.

    And I say this from wide experience with Olympus, as in my experience AF is fine in good controlled conditions, and lessens considerably when the going gets tough and as incrementally those conditions change the ability of the AF system decreases.

    I do not see Olympus as a company that has an innate skill in developing AF systems. If Im wrong well I can only be happy about that, but thats my feeling about the matter and my suspicion of where its all going.
    I think that's a possible outcome. I think the other outcome is possible also. That's why I say that I hope they manage to do what they are saying.

    - Raist

  38. #238
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    It's also possible that they'll find a way to implement phase detection AF in a Pen pro like Sony has done with SLT. Olympus did design the E-330, a camera that if it had been launched today would probably have had an EVF. My guess is that Olympus will try to be a notch sharper than Panasonic when it comes to pro cameras, and making one with a better AF system and better compatibility with 4/3 lenses may be a way to do that.

  39. #239
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    the present standard, although it comes from another derivative (that had less industry support) didnt come into play until after Oct 20 2006
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse330/
    http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka.../DC-004_EN.pdf
    this document precedes that but I can prove it if doubted
    So what do you make of the e-410 then, which has "hot" ISO 100 and lower than expected ISO 1600?

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/page16.asp

    Even the more recent e-420 is off at ISO 100:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse420/page16.asp

    If what you were trying to prove is that, that was because the e-330 came before this document, surely the e-410 proves that logic wrong. I have corroborated what dpreview pointed out too, I have one.

    ok, how many cameras do DxO make, and how many photographs do they take?
    Not sure why DxO has to make any cameras to understand the engineering issues involved in dynamic range- at least far better than preview. As for photos they have to take a bunch if they want their RAW converter be worth anything.

    are you telling me that Andy is wrong about the the nature of DxO testing as it pertains to the standard on this matter, b/se thats an argument you best take up with him.
    I don't have to take it up with him at all. I don't have to do anything. Andy is not an authority in this subject and DXo is. It's that simple. But for the record, I have taken it up to preview before to Phil and Simon.

    Irrespective of that, your camera has an ISO measurement that conforms to the standard, while nobody argues how well a fit that is between jpeg images, its a fact that most popular RAW converters are amenable to that same specification although this is relatively recent.
    The fact that RAW converters when they don't support cameras show the truth of what is going on- that the ISO's are pushed is very telling. Now, you can comply with the standard and get that exposure at the respective ISO, but what will happen is that cameras that are actually more sensitive to light/better sensors will show less noise. This is why the 620/e-30 and forward have so much more noise than the resolution increase from 10-12 megapixels would have suggested. An E-3 has noticeable more shadow range than the E-30 and forward. The real reason is that ISO push on the other cameras, which comply with the ISO standard as you say but then you get that noise.

    This is why Dxo normalizes the sensitivity and talks in the graph about signal to noise ratio. This is important, because better sensors will have a better signal.

    I think arguing that DxO are the only ones right and everyone else is wrong is quite silly. DxO are right for themselves, everyone else conforms with the standard
    I don't argue that DXo are the only ones right. There are other reviews that mention the noise in the E-5 and some that don't but then they go ahead and compare JPEGS between cameras. At that point a better JPEG engine will do a better result and it's well known the Olympus JPEG engine is at the top (Fuji's the other). But as far as the sensitivity of the sensors, you can even forget about conforming to an ISO then- it's the measured signal to noise ratio with standardized light. I don't know how much more accurate it can get for a comparison and the other things they mention they do.

    I dont buy that at all, from yourself its simply user derived opinion, its not testing.
    You are more than welcome to say that, though I provided full instructions on how to reproduce some of the testing I do myself, only to be called names, which quite frankly, doesn't seem very logical to me.

    As to the difference between DxO values and those of actual camera manufacturers on review, one is data, the other is photographic derived data, which is more important?
    Normalized sensitivity data is important because that's all the data you get at a given intensity to do any derived data. The derived data varies greatly in JPEG but not in RAW as far as being exclusive to each brand.

    if they dont, why are the data points different. You already know the answer,
    Please refrain from making suppositions as to "what I supposedly know" that you want to prove and allegedly implicitly agree with because that's simply nonsense.

    its ot a matter of the sensor and pipeline, its a matter of how the tests are constructed and only that. IMO its a huge blunder on DxO's part for the usefulness of their data, and the correlation to other available data.
    It's actually quite useful. Like I said, I have been able to corroborate their expected noise/iso's/DR relative to the cameras I have. They do not cover banding situations though.

    Of course I said several replies back that one easy way to see all of this is for yourself, just download RAWS of the E-5 at ISO 3200 and A900, play with them, push pull, see how has much more shadow control and upon resizing down, which looks better.

    likewise fitting DR to a curve optimised to the highlight end will fit some cameras better than others, hence this leads to our previous discussion of IMATEST data and the proximity of DxO data
    Not really. This is all pretty linear and it's arbitrary where the manufacturers set it to.

    obfuscation, you were given the opportunity twice, 3x if you include this. I gave you fair warning and its a fair call on my part, and your concluding section here gives the answer to this anyway
    I am sorry but I don't believe you are in any shape or form to call it this way, more so when you can't even show due process yourself with a camera like I did with the 620 and draw.

    there you go with this assumption that DxO are right, and the rest of the planet is wrong. But FWIW there is some easy math on the noise value of downsampled image sizes. If in this event you went from 24Mp to 12Mp that works out to the root of (24/12) or 1.41
    I don't see how that changes anything, or has to do with much :-)

    - Raist

  40. #240
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    It's also possible that they'll find a way to implement phase detection AF in a Pen pro like Sony has done with SLT. Olympus did design the E-330, a camera that if it had been launched today would probably have had an EVF. My guess is that Olympus will try to be a notch sharper than Panasonic when it comes to pro cameras, and making one with a better AF system and better compatibility with 4/3 lenses may be a way to do that.
    Well keep in mind Panasonic already solved the AF issue with contrast AF. Their GH2 is really fast in AF. If you meant them supporting the 4/3rd lenses, you should check out how fast the Panny Leica F1.4 focuses. AFAIK, most if not all Panasonic 4/3rd lenses can do fast contrast AF. So right now the GH2 supports that better, much better, on micro four thirds than Olympus does.

    But the end game to me is this: if we are moving to a Pen Pro, it just doesn't make sense to carry the big lenses. This means new smaller pro lenses and the 4/3rd lenses eventually discontinued if not starting to do that already. This is why Olympus canned the development of the telephoto macro 4/3rds lens.

    And if they make a pen pro as big as an E-5, then I don't see much point in having gone Pen at all (I don't' think the EVF is enough to make a difference here).

    - Raist

  41. #241
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    The fact that Panasonic has solved the AF challenge doesn't mean that Olympus will solve it the same way. As opposed to Panasonic, Olympus has a lot of 4/3 users that they will probably try to serve in the best possible way.

    How large the pro Pen will be is to early to say, but I take it for given that it will be larger than the GH2. The biggest problem with the GH1, at least for me, is that there's not enough space for my fingers between the buttons. The E-1 was perfect in this respect.

    Although it's clear that Olympus will develop new HG or SHG lenses for m4/3, I doubt that there will be a 14-35 or 35-100mm f/2.0. There's a limit as to how small they can make f/2.0 zooms, and if they can't make them much smaller, they might as well go with what they have. There might be Mark II versions that work better with contrast detect AF, but Olympus know that there are many customers who have invested considerable amounts in SHG glass, and who will not invest in a new set from Olympus if their existing lenses suddenly has zero value.

    Olympus has been criticized for discontinuing the OM system leaving the users with lenses that couldn't be used with full functionality on existing cameras. But the OM system lived for nearly 30 years. 4/3 is so far less than 7 years old, and I would be surprised if they don't understand what a PR disaster it would be to leave all the users on dry land.

  42. #242
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    The fact that Panasonic has solved the AF challenge doesn't mean that Olympus will solve it the same way. As opposed to Panasonic, Olympus has a lot of 4/3 users that they will probably try to serve in the best possible way.
    I agree Olympus may not solve it the same way, what I am saying is that Panasonic can focus very fast 4/3rd lenses of their brand on the GH2. I saw a video showing the focusing with the Panny Leica and it was pretty much DSLR class fast. In other words, Panasonic took care of their own.

    How large the pro Pen will be is to early to say, but I take it for given that it will be larger than the GH2. The biggest problem with the GH1, at least for me, is that there's not enough space for my fingers between the buttons. The E-1 was perfect in this respect.
    Yes, but making a Pen Pro as big as a E-1 is history repeating itself. I mean what is the advantage then? I actually think that a small camera close to the GH1 may be doable with a better grip or ergonomics. Maybe just a notch bigger (K-5 size?) but not more than that. Otherwise what's the point of doing pens? The idea of micro four thirds is small. Anything else is history repeating itself.

    Although it's clear that Olympus will develop new HG or SHG lenses for m4/3, I doubt that there will be a 14-35 or 35-100mm f/2.0. There's a limit as to how small they can make f/2.0 zooms, and if they can't make them much smaller, they might as well go with what they have.
    Think this through for a second: you really think people buying a micro four thirds will pay $2,000+USD for a 14-35 with the size and weight it is (again for micro four thirds?). I don't see that happening. Again, if to put such a big lens on the camera, then what's the point of micro four thirds?

    I think we are going to see possibly an F2.8 constant or F2.0 zoom that will be really good in quality but may have some barrel/pincushion whatever distortion and they will correct it in software. It will still be a good lens, wont' be as good as say the 14-35 but it will be good enough, won't be as expensive and will be small. Small is key here.

    There might be Mark II versions that work better with contrast detect AF, but Olympus know that there are many customers who have invested considerable amounts in SHG glass, and who will not invest in a new set from Olympus if their existing lenses suddenly has zero value.
    Oh but just because they discontinue 4/3rd lenses doesn't mean they won't focus well on the new system. I mean I am also going by that. Otherwise they face a huge pr backlash. But that doesn't mean the 4/3rd lenses carry on. There is simply zero reason to continue manufacturing 4/3rd lenses at least once the pen pro comes along.

    Olympus has been criticized for discontinuing the OM system leaving the users with lenses that couldn't be used with full functionality on existing cameras. But the OM system lived for nearly 30 years. 4/3 is so far less than 7 years old, and I would be surprised if they don't understand what a PR disaster it would be to leave all the users on dry land.
    I am not saying they will leave us on dry land- I think they will support the lenses. I also think there's a possibility they wont' be as supported but I am much more inclined to think they will. But the lenses will be discontinued, no doubt, and new micro four thirds lenses will come along.

    There is zero point to a pen pro going with the assumption you have to buy 4/3rd lenses to use it well.

    - Raist

  43. #243
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,868
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    So far I see NO SINGLS M43 lens which I would rate pro level or pro quality. I am not saying these are bad lenses, some of them are great, but as a pro I would want something different. And I do not see any signs of something close to SHG coming in M43.

    So if Olympus really discontinues their SHG lenses then I would be very pissed. But till then I will be happy with the 43 lenses and E5 which I have now. What comes then (in 2-3 years) nobody knows. But what is actually so bad about it? I switched complete systems every 2 years anyway, so I just will stay in the same track

  44. #244
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    I dobt believe a "proffessional" m4/3 to be the solution to replace a DSLR.
    First I agree when you have a certain number of buttons on a camera and if you want certain size lenses then a super small body doesnt handle balanced.
    Even the K5 is the limited for me regarding small size and I allready find it harder to press the right buttons compared to my D700.
    Hands just have a certain size and smaller and smaller means lighter and convenient to carry but doesnt mean better handling IMO.
    The other thing is that with all advantages of electronic viewfinder there might still be some disadvantages (what about delay for sports?).
    I reall find m4/3 great for certain things, but I dont believe it can replace dslrs.

  45. #245
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,868
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    I dobt believe a "proffessional" m4/3 to be the solution to replace a DSLR.
    First I agree when you have a certain number of buttons on a camera and if you want certain size lenses then a super small body doesnt handle balanced.
    Even the K5 is the limited for me regarding small size and I allready find it harder to press the right buttons compared to my D700.
    Hands just have a certain size and smaller and smaller means lighter and convenient to carry but doesnt mean better handling IMO.
    The other thing is that with all advantages of electronic viewfinder there might still be some disadvantages (what about delay for sports?).
    I reall find m4/3 great for certain things, but I dont believe it can replace dslrs.
    Could not agree more!

    An acceptable Pro M43 camera would need to have a similar size for me as the E5. Much smaller I would not accept anyway! Plus an OVF or at least a hybrid viewfinder wit same quality as an OVF. I doubt this can be realized pretty soon.

  46. #246
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    So what do you make of the e-410 then, which has "hot" ISO 100 and lower than expected ISO 1600?

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/page16.asp

    Even the more recent e-420 is off at ISO 100:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse420/page16.asp

    If what you were trying to prove is that, that was because the e-330 came before this document, surely the e-410 proves that logic wrong.
    'logic' has nothing to do with it, the standard was not established when 330 was produced and reviewed. 330 is non-compliant to the standard

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    I have corroborated what dpreview pointed out too, I have one.
    that was faulty metering, not all 410 produced the same results and that was widely discussed at the time. It was like there were 2 kinds of 410 out there, and this was recognised at wrotniak too http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/e410-usr.html. The similar sensor E3 tested perfectly for ISO with DPR http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/page19.asp yet the curves themselves at DxO dont show any remarkable difference. If you dont believe myself perhaps you believe that

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    Not sure why DxO has to make any cameras to understand the engineering issues involved in dynamic range- at least far better than preview. As for photos they have to take a bunch if they want their RAW converter be worth anything.
    this has jack to do with their converter tools (which suck anyway) it is about their non-compliant test philosophy

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    I don't have to take it up with him at all. I don't have to do anything. Andy is not an authority in this subject and DXo is. It's that simple. But for the record, I have taken it up to preview before to Phil and Simon.
    yet you dont mind irresponsibly quoting their results when you think it suits you, even when you would recall the truth to it

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    The fact that RAW converters when they don't support cameras show the truth of what is going on- that the ISO's are pushed is very telling. Now, you can comply with the standard and get that exposure at the respective ISO, but what will happen is that cameras that are actually more sensitive to light/better sensors will show less noise. This is why the 620/e-30 and forward have so much more noise than the resolution increase from 10-12 megapixels would have suggested. An E-3 has noticeable more shadow range than the E-30 and forward. The real reason is that ISO push on the other cameras, which comply with the ISO standard as you say but then you get that noise.
    its about the difference between curves beholding to the standard and those of non compliant DxO push the specification positions for ISO across DxO charted curves. The noise they provide at their own ISO locations is not the one to read but those of the standards specification location, Its as simple as that

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    This is why Dxo normalizes the sensitivity and talks in the graph about signal to noise ratio. This is important, because better sensors will have a better signal.
    only ever correct if by some accident the DxO data complies with the standard, which it doesnt.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    Please refrain from making suppositions as to "what I supposedly know" that you want to prove and allegedly implicitly agree with because that's simply nonsense.
    this is the core of the problem with you, you wont listen to reason, you dont answer questions, then you get all accusatory when someone gets close to the truth of it.

    you said "Those manufacturer curves don't change sensor characteristics."
    What I said was "if they dont, why are the data points different. You already know the answer,"

    and the answer you avoid is b/se the data is acquired differently, one complies with the standard beholding to the industry, the manufacturers and reviewers, the other is out on its own, the other is DxO

    so instead of accusing me of things I never participated in, answer the question. Do you or do you not already know that put to you above ?

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    Not really. This is all pretty linear and it's arbitrary where the manufacturers set it to.
    The manufacturers comply to the standard, they do this b/se they must as they are contractually compelled to. DxO OTOH do not comply to any standard

  47. #247
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    I dobt believe a "proffessional" m4/3 to be the solution to replace a DSLR.
    First I agree when you have a certain number of buttons on a camera and if you want certain size lenses then a super small body doesnt handle balanced.
    Even the K5 is the limited for me regarding small size and I allready find it harder to press the right buttons compared to my D700.
    Hands just have a certain size and smaller and smaller means lighter and convenient to carry but doesnt mean better handling IMO.
    The other thing is that with all advantages of electronic viewfinder there might still be some disadvantages (what about delay for sports?).
    I reall find m4/3 great for certain things, but I dont believe it can replace dslrs.
    these are my fears too
    I suspect this standard ends to be replaced with a giant micro b/se thats the only thing that makes sense. Sometimes I wonder if someone out there figures they made a slight miscalculation in all that

  48. #248
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    'logic' has nothing to do with it, the standard was not established when 330 was produced and reviewed. 330 is non-compliant to the standard
    To conclude that requires logic. Of course this doesn't explain the 410 *and* the more recent 420. This is why it's important to test. However the DXo graph more than anything is not just ISO but actual sensor sensitivity, marked with a signal to noise ratio.

    yet you dont mind irresponsibly quoting their results when you think it suits you, even when you would recall the truth to it
    I am sorry but that's a flat out lie, slander.

    this is the core of the problem with you, you wont listen to reason, you dont answer questions, then you get all accusatory when someone gets close to the truth of it.
    I am sorry but I do listen to reason when I see it proven and there. That doesn't make me perfect. In the meantime the only one accusing me of something, presuming something so far in this thread has been you. Stop projecting.

    At the feedback of a respected member I am bowing out of this thread. Those who want to listen and read will, and most importantly, test for themselves and reach their own conclusions will, those who don't won't.

    you said "Those manufacturer curves don't change sensor characteristics."
    What I said was "if they dont, why are the data points different. You already know the answer,"
    A curve is post processing. Not an inherent sensor characteristic. And, no, stop attributing what "answer I supposedly already know." Then you accuse of me accusing!

    I am out of the thread. You can think what you want. I encourage everyone to read what Dxo has to say for themselves and most importantly, download E-5 and A900 RAWS and try for yourselves, preferably with a good raw converter like LR 3.3 or Apple's Aperture (do note Aperture is better than the built in preview app conversions). That ultimately should answer any questions as to how better the A900 is that an E-5 at high ISO (remember to resize the A900 to ballpark 12 megapixels when comparing).

    - Raist

  49. #249
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    This thread is now closed. Was going to do it earlier but I decided to let it go on until there were complaints.
    Last edited by Bob; 16th March 2011 at 04:11.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •